Lessons From Paper Clips

To a fierce competitor, instead of being a discouragement, the failure of predecessors to achieve a goal can be a powerful motivator. Ask any athlete. The fact that no one before him had run a four-minute mile did not discourage Roger Bannister from attempting to do so. He succeeded in 1954, and since that time, many others have broken the four-minute barrier. Analogous achievements have occurred in many other sporting events.

In the field of inventions, hopefuls focus on points of failure to zero in on what needs improvement. One late 20th century American inventor concentrated on the enduring tendency of the Gem’s sharp and rough wire ends to damage paper. To him, eliminating the ends altogether would eliminate the fault. The logic is impeccable, but how can you form a paper clip from a piece of wire that has no ends?

He could not do that, of course, but what he could do was form a clip out of a conventional piece of wire, and then join the two ends to create an “endless filament paper clip.” The unorthodox-looking device certainly achieved its inventor’s objective, but at some major costs: It used more wire than a Gem; its fabrication involved the extra step of joining the two ends together; and its unfamiliar shape did not identify it as a paper clip, let alone suggest to the potential user how it worked. It succeeded in the patent office but not in the marketplace.

One German inventor eliminated the rough details by first forming small balls on the ends of the piece of wire that was to be bent into the familiar Gem shape. The balled ends naturally eliminated any troublesome burrs, and so the clip was very gentle on paper. There was an extra manufacturing cost, but the finished product did not look so different from a classic Gem. In fact, its ball-ends identified it as an obvious improvement.

Other inventors have addressed rough wire ends by starting with a longer piece of wire, and forming the clip so that when it's attached to paper, its ends fall near or beyond the edges, making it less likely to snag them.

There always seems to be new challenges for the paper clip inventor. One very recently introduced clip addresses the concern that steel can damage a paper shredder. The new clip is made out of highly compressed paper products, so it can be left on documents sent to the shredder and do no harm. It does not look anything like a Gem, but resembles the kind of plastic paper clip introduced decades ago to deal with the perceived problem of steel clips demagnetizing floppy disks.

James, the best way to overcome patent restrictions is addressing the drawbacks or negative aspects of the patented design/product. This will help for obtaining a new patent, which is superior to the existing one. That can also brings more market values.

Rob, patenting the technology has both advantage and disadvantage. The advantage is patenting will help them for full right over the design or products, so misuse can be avoided and they will get royalty to use their products or designs. But at the same time it will restrict others to continue research in similar direction, they are forces to rethink or redirect their efforts to some other directions.

Roy Grumman used two paper clips and a drafting eraser to come up with the concept for the folding wings on the US Navy F4F Wildcat fighter during WW2...the eraser/paperclip model was on display in Bethpage Long Island at one time.

You must remember one foundational point about patents that is almost always misunderstood by the general public: Patents are a defense element to protect the core element; the core being, a profitable business model – in whatever business you may choose.

Too often, patent blogs and message boards are covered with people's inquiries and disappointment regarding developing, filing, processing, and actually getting patents. None of this makes you money, and on the contrary is extremely expensive.

The patent is to defend the money-making idea. Additionally, you can turn a defensive patent into an offensive element, by marketing it as a license to your potential competition. But its still a secondary tool (defensive or offensive) to the primary element – the profitable business plan.

All too often, people think getting a patent will make them rich. Trust me, NOT true. I have 23.

I use the Gem paper clip as an example of how advances in material science change how problems can be solved. It was the advances in wire making that made it possible to form the Gem at the time it was invented. Prior to that it was pins that were used. I for one don't believe we are any smarter than the inventors of the past. We just have a better portfolio of materials and a larger knowledge base to choose from. For the inventors of the Gem, they finally had a wire they could bend at a small enough radius to make their paper clip. I'm sure they didn't drive the material science, but they knew how to use it when it came.

I find the concept of creating a patent as a private citizen extremely daunting. The economics of performing a patent search and all the aspects of generating economic return on an unproven design are difficult. I can make a device to perform very intricate tasks using my normal iterative process and when I have the performance I want, I'll put it to work doing the job it was designed for and go on to the next task. Perhaps wrongly, I regard the application for and issuance of a patent as a luxury. I know some outstanding machinists, mechanics and electronics whizes, mechanical and electronic engineers who daily use potentially patentable devices who had they taken the time to patent, would have starved waiting for the process to work. Perhaps I'll create the next great thing and I'll meet the right person at the right time and have the money and good luck to find it's patentable and I'll get a patent to put on the wall and actually find someone with the capacity and capitol to risk making a bunch of them to sell. Or, I could continue making paper-clip-equivalents and hope for the best.

What's surprising to me is how inventors of the day were able to perfect the paper clip's performance with (what I assume) was so little knowledge of theoretical and applied mechanics and material science. Did the clip's inventors pay attention to characteristics such as strain hardening when they chose the material and the shape? Or to the elastic modulus or the flexural strength of the material? Or was the patent art based on seat-of-the-pants conclusions?

It's odd, no matter how new your idea is, there is probably prior art that is the same thing. I am dealing with this concept on a hand full of projects I am working on. But, as a friend of mine suggested, I am adding "patent defeating holes" to my designs. Features that will make it different from all the others in question. Underhanded, but what can I say... I want to see my ideas come to fruition.

Good point, Mydesign. It's interesting, though, to see the patent wars over smart phones and tablets. Patent owners in this territory have been able to win substantial gains by calling their competitors on technology theft. The wins have included both money and bans from selling the offending product in specific countries. These wars have given me a whole new respect for the value of a patent.

The standards electrical machines and components are required to meet in the food processing industry are far more stringent than those in traditional plant construction. For specialized production environments such as these, components must not only resist thermal and physical stresses, but they must also be resistant to the chemicals used to sterilize equipment.

The word “smart” is becoming the dumbest word around. It has been applied to almost every device and system in our homes. In addition to smartphones and smart meters, we now hear about smart clothing and smart shoes, smart lights, smart homes, smart buildings, and every trendy city today has its smart city project. Just because it has a computer inside and is connected to the Web, does not mean it is smart.

Was Steve Job’s signature outfit of a black turtleneck, jeans, and sneakers the secret behind his success? Maybe, or maybe not, but it was likely an indication of a decision-making philosophy that enabled him to become one of the most successful innovators of all time.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.